>> hi name is marie sorenson. i was actually here a year or two years ago when they were working on the hunters point project. the community came out and said that the clean up is making our kids sick. they're not doing a good enough job. they had figures from kids getting asthma and all the problems they were having. ever single one of the supervisors voted against them. to come to find out, the company that was hired to do the clean up was on suspension from the engineering society they were part of. look how hunters point has turned out. they say there's not a lot of toxicity. it brings me to this project.

these projects that are coming through are not well thought out. they're just pushed through as fast as they can get with no thought on the people. yeah, we've got the carpenters here. to me, a job is to a carpenter what a bone is to a dog. they're always going to jump. doesn't matter if the project is good or bad. they don't care. the fact is they're going to work anyway. who cares. these projects, particularly the one in hunters point needs to be much more well thought out. really, what the people who live there in mind and not all the rich people that will come in and displace the current community. thank you. >> do you live in bay view hunters point. >> i live in the mission but i was at the hearing. several hearings. >> thank you. >> let some bay view residents

speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is michael hammond. i'm a resident of india basin and a member of the neighborhood association. it's not news to anybody that there's a critical shortage of housing for all income strat aan san francisco. there are programs in place to support housing for those earning 50% below a.m.i. the d.a. provides for significant amounts of affordable housing for the missing middle. that is those residents who earn between 50 and 120% of a.m.i. that includes schoolteachers, cops and supervisors. these are the people who can no longer afford to live in our city and who we desperately need to retain. by providing middle-class housing, this project presents a unique opportunity to do just that.

this neighborhood has a desperate need for the goods and services and folks use on a daily basis. such as a grocery store. the bay view in general, and specifically india basin, is a notorious food desert with the nearest grocery store four miles away. the nearest store of any sort 1.3 miles away. redevelopment and the mayor's office have tried for many, many years to entice the store into our area. and the response has always been, we don't have the right economic profile. that means enough middle-class residents. this is an unfortunate and unfair but it is a reality. this development is committed to bring in a grocery store into the neighborhood and while this will benefit the new residents moving in, it will also have an impact on the people who live

there now. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is jill fox. i have lived on ennis avenue for 26 years. raised a family there and i'm here representing the india basin neighborhood association. an organization of existing residents, businesses and friends of the community. over all, we support the india basin l.l.c. project. our neighborhood is beautiful but challenged. as you've heard, there is no food, there are no amenities, our infrastructure is weak, the telephone poles along ennis avenue were installed in 1941. they are the oldest in this city. they literally fall down. we have no sidewalks. we have no crosswalks.

we've been told for years that we need development in order to get these improvements. this development also greatly expands useable public low-owned open space. our organization led the charge to acquire 900 ennis and we believe that it will be the most beautiful park. it has been called by the recreation and park department the chrissy field of the south and we really believe that we won't be able to have this beautiful park unless we have this development. we have worked for four years with build inc to get this range of housing sizes and housing prices so that as we stated, we can accommodate the missing middle for city employees, people who work at the mission bay hospital. the full range of income levels

are what we need in our community. we look forward to having these new neighbors who can join us to live, work and play along the blue green way at india basin. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. any other speakers? anyone else that would like to speak? madam chair, we can close public comment. >> public comment for items 10-12 is closed. >> i feel like we're talking past each a there's other. we are going to bring before us, so everyone can see on the overhead -- this is a chart. i need you to flip it around. so, this is a chart. scroll it down a little bit. pull it down. we don't need to see 200a.m.i. so this chart is -- i have this

one for you. this is a chart for maximum income by household. it's been adjusted. it's to represent 2018. this is derived from the adjusted area median income, also known as a.m.i. for hud, metro fair market rent area that it contains san francisco. and the reason why this is important is because we're hearing a couple things. we're all in agreement about a housing crisis. when we're talking about a.m.i., could you point 55 a.m.i. for one person, 55 a.m.i. means that person is making $45,600 a year. that's just one person. if you wanted to get married or partner up with someone, that means that between the two of you, you would not be able to exceed the income at $45,600.

often times, we use teachers as an example. a former teach us, an educator malcolm x elementary school. teachers, when they come into the school district, they are earning 57 a.m.i. -- $57,000, excuse me. so that right there, this is just one teacher at $57,000. which means that would have to be at 70%. you see what i'm saying. what i'm trying to say is we do a lot of talk and we place a lot of creed anson the 55 level. i'm not here to argue that we don't need it. as a matter of fact, in my opening remarks i gave you statistics about how many units we have that are at 55,000 a.m.i. let me tell what you that is again. the report shows district 10, one district is carrying 40% of

the new affordable housing ain't in the entire city's pipeline. the argument you making is relevant in districts like 1, 2, 3, 4, with the exception of 11. with the exception of district 6 and 10. they're carrying the pipeline of net new units that will fit in the 55 a.m.i. level. specifically that is 1,500 to be built and 6500 already built. what i'm here to talk b. i is te misslmizmissing middle. what about the carpenter, firefighters, or teachers with two kids? even if they were single. a teacher with two kids probably

puts us around 75% a. m.i.i. we node to be smart about the mix of the projects that we're approving. the point of what i'm trying to make here is that i am in agreement we are in an affordable housing crisis but we need to build for everything. there are city employees that cannot afford to live here because we've been so focused on really low a.m.i. rates. i have a theory why. because when we think about poor people in the city, we think about people of color. let's just have a frank conversation. we think about black people, we think about latino people. but you know what we don't think about, we don't think about the working black people and latino people. my own, our own legislative aids would not even be able to qualify for these b. m.r. units. let me drive that home here. if you told your children, get up, go to school, go to college, get an education, and come back to your city. your child probably wouldn't be

able to afford these new constructions, not because we're not -- because they're too poor. but because ironically, they make too much because we've been focused on just building housing for certain segments. which i want to point out, we have ample units. i'm looking for a healthy mix. i need a mix. i need people who are making $82,000, as we joked in the newspaper a few weeks ago, how the folks over in d.p.w. cleaning up the poop on the street making $80,000, they too deserve to live in san francisco. we need to make sure we are building these units. to the speaker that i thought said some insulting things about the carpenters, these are working people, most of them drew up in san francisco, they also deserve a shot.

and i think it's not fair to say that they are only exercising or coming out on projects because it's in their vested interest. that was insulting and disrespectful. so, those are the key points i wanted to highlight and emphasize on where we are in this discussion. one thing that also, supervisors kim spoke about, was section 415. this is a section that says something basically that there should be 19% b.m.r. rate. what is concerning is that if we stick to that code, and we stick to the letter of that law, that means that this project would be out of compliance with the inclusionary housing, particularly the project sponsor is offering a quarter, 25% b.m.r., above, up and beyond by six percentage points, more

b.m.r. that what would be normally determined to be found in the section 415. to me that's the give away. that's the give away to the developer. we need to be holding developers accountable and acknowledge that we need housing mixed for everyone. supervisor kim and then supervisor safai. >> thank you. a couple points i wanted to make, one, i also agree we need to build significantly more middle-income housing. i just want to correct the assertion on why we build a lot of middle working-class housing. if you are making at 55% of average medicine yan income you are a working person. for a single person you make $45,000 a year, that's many of our workers here in san francisco, many of our non-profit workers and actually our beginner teachers. if you are family of four, you

are making about $65,000 a year. we reason we build the average income that is where we apply tax credits and they help build at forward able housing. that is why typically, we have built more at this level and we don't have enough housing because we don't provide as many credits to build middle-class housing. now, i am ok with building a greater number of middle income housing on the site. however, when we negotiate deals, the percentages is lower if the units are deeply subsidized. so for example, if build was to commit to building 100% supportive housing for the formally homeless, we would not require them to build 25% on site. the requirement might be 10% or 15% on site. now, if you are going to build higher income housing, where the subsidy per unit is less, ve at private developer, then you have to build more than 25% on site.

because the subsidy is less. so i would encourage the committee to look at not the percentages of numbers but actually what the value of the package of what the developer is offering and pure dollars. so, if we expect the developer to commit to, i'm just going to make up a number, $40 million in affordable housing, whatever that is, that should be the contribution. so, i think that we have to be careful when we talk about percentages. secondly, in our inclusionary ordinance in 2017, we both tip you lated to what he will -- we stipulate lated who is eligible and what the rental price should be pegged at. so supervisor and president cohen presented a grid of who will be eligible for this housing. i think that it's important, actually, for households that make up to 140% of medium income should be eligible for housing on that site.

the question is what rent or ownership price should we peg those units at. in our insolution ary housing ordinance in 2017, we require three bands for developers to meet. the first is 10% said aside for households to make from 0% to 65% of average income. let me tell what you that is according to the mayor's office of community development in 2018. a studio at 55% of income is pegged at $1,140. now i think for many people, they would still have a hard time paying $1,140 for a studio. but that is what is to come from affordable housing in san francisco. to understand what it means when we peg the price at 1140%, the

studio is $2,901. that is what we're calling affordable housing in the studio that we can rent a studio at 140% of median income and the rent is $2,109. i don't see how that's affordable for anyone that is working class? my issue is not with who sell eligible, let's have households that are eligible for housing at indian basin, i don't want to charge the price of a 140% as that rent. is the way it works in our inclusionary ordinance is 2017, recognizing the rent price was so high is what we said is the highest stand was limited at 110% of a.m.i., but households that make up to 130% are eligible to apply for that unit. now a studio at 110% of median income is still $2,280. that is the max i'm asking for

in this development project. i just don't think that i can allow a project to say that they're affordable contribution is a studio pegged at $2,901. i just don't consider that affordable housing. i feel strongly about the project and everyone should look at numbers of what the rent prices are capped at firsts the a.m.i. of who is eligible, we should have a wide ban and have a cap on that run. it's not a contribution if we allow the developer to build the units at 140% of median income rent price. in my final response around the 25%, it's that we can do more middle income. that's fine. but we have to think about what the appropriate percentage is and maybe it's more than 25%. finally, i still know and i know president and i cohen and i have talked about t. i still have issues that if the developer

elects to not build on site but fee out to the city, they would only have to do that at 5%. we require a higher percentage. i roughly calculated this last week, i think it was about 6 and a half percent it's really a difference from 75 units off site to 110 units off site. this is a bare minimum. otherwise the developer should have to build all of their units on site. we do this because it takes often a very long time for the mayor's office of housing to build off site housing. by requiring these units to be built on site we know that these projects, these affordable units will be delivered as a market rate units are delivered as well. so, a couple of things, again. the max we should allow for this project is 110% or 120% for home

ownership with a wide band of who is eligible second, if the developer elects to do the fee out to the city, that it should be higher than 5%. the final thing i will say is this, i represented a district that is very poor and very wealthy. we are losing retail ever were . in the wealthy neighborhoods and in the poor neighborhoods. it's not just about who lives in the neighborhood. people are frankly just not shopping in retail. they're not going out to eat dinner at a restaurant. i don't think we can simply say it's because of how much people make that allows grocery stores or retail stores to survive. an example is china town. one of the poor neighborhoods in san francisco, which has an incredibly revitalized corridor along stockton, where, very low income people shop for food every single day and those stores survive.

paying a high rent per square footage. i have also tried to get a grocery store in the tenderloin and i have not succeeded. i know, i understand supervisor cohen's frustration with representing a neighborhood that is a food desert. i disagree it's because of the income level of residents. i just don't think that these businesses are willing to invest in our neighborhoods. in fact, the response i got from grocery stores is not that people make too little in the tenderloin, what we know nationally in the data s. that poor people just spend their income on rent and food than anybody else does. they pay the same price that a wealthy person pays for food, it's just a greater proportion of their income because people have to buy food. the issue that grocery stores said is they're worried about shrink age, which is shoplifting. that is why stores have refused to come to the tenderloin, it's not because our residents are too poor to buy food. they pay more for food in this

neighborhood than at other neighborhoods because they pen on small corner stores where those small business owners don't make a wide margin in profit and don't buy the scale. and therefore, they have to charge more per unit for the same item that a wealthy person may buy for a deeper discount because they can buy it in bulk at costco or go to whole foods who buys food across the country in one bulk. i just feel very strongly about this i think we have to be consistent. i don't want to set a precedent for a major development agreement and housing project that they are going to contribute less than what we expect of other developers. that is where i am today. i'd love to continue this conversation through tomorrow. i know that this will be a lot the full board of supervisors. for me, it's really important that we get a good deal and build for the people that need housing in the city. we have to do it at the appropriate-run price.

>> thank you. >> i want to hit on the point that supervisor kim has made. do we have a response from either staff or the project sponsor on the rent bans? that was an important part of the conversation that we had when we did inclusionary housing. we spent a lot of time, myself, supervisor kim and president breed at the time and supervisor peskin, alon along with many mes of the community. it's an important point. we would have a price point related to the rental units around those bans. >> supervisor lou. the rent bans were created because essentially, we were originally going to go at 110 average with just a range -- >> this is different from what you are saying. the percentages that you broken out, 5% of 55, what supervisor kim, to clarify, at 55 there's a

band around that that you can be above 55 and below 55 to a certain point but the rent is pegged at 55 for that 5%. same thing on the top 5% at 140. you would be within a range but the rent would be set and it would not be sent at 140% a.m.i. that's fine in terms of filling those units because i know that we always have trouble with getting people that qualify for those units at those ranges. and the hard range. in terms of, to be frank, in else it of the revenue, what matters is what we can rent the units for. there's two sides to that question. one is, what is the revenue coming from the rent and the other is who can we rent to. i don't know if that answers the question. >> i'm not sure what the question is. >> restate it again because i've

tried a couple times. the rent would be pegged at a particular number for all of that 5%. >> the lowest band would be 55% or below. the middle band would be -- >> i'm not talking about the people anymore. we're talking about the rent. >> the actual rent would be set at 55% a.m.i. >> what about at the 80 to 120? >> the went would be between 08 and 120, to an average of 110%. all three bands would be set so that when you put them all together, the average rent on the affordable would be 110% a.m.i. that's for sailor for rent or for any unit. >> that needs to be cleared out, spelled out specifically so we would know. supervisor kim, with we did the middle band, the rent was pegged at 90. >> 110. >> it was pegged at 110? that was the upper band. >> i'm sorry, yes. the highest band. it was 80%.

>> so it was 55, 80 and 110. those are where the rents were pegged, right. it didn't matter if yours was different because it's 80 to 120. >> that was an over all percent. it toggles the whole calculation. we're at 25%. >> so we would just -- that would probably make a little more comfort level to have that. >> we're happy to discuss how to do the math here. and it's our intent to build as much affordable housing as we can. i think someone from your team wants to say something. >> the chart that we laid out -- >> identify yourself. >> courtney pasch with build. it was for sale and rentals. that's why the range is wider than in section 415. >> so maybe you guys can just think about clearing that up for the over all. >> when we finalize this in a

final vote, it would be helpful to have it clearly spelled out. i hear supervisor kim -- through the chair? >> i do think it's helpful to include who is eligible at each rental price. i emphasize why i can't accept 140% as the highest band for the rental price. i would have take this stuff and i'm at 140% of average median income and i want to i'm a renter and i spend too much in rent. i would not want to spend $3,000 a month on a studio. that is what you are including as your contribution to the city's affordable housing crisis. i just don't see how that's acceptable. >> this is courtney pasch, this

is still in the housing plan that we are capped at 80% of the market rate and the bayview or district 10, i believe. so, if the market rent is less than 140, we would not be able to rent at 140% a.m.i. remember, 140% is also for sale. >> you didn't actually say that. i read the amendment that you put in. it says -- it does not specify it's for sale only. it's for rentals or sale. >> she didn't mean to say it was for sale only. it was for either. >> right. >> so that -- may i just ask perhaps to clarify for the future. if president cohen, if you might want to entertain an amendment to exhibit h that might distinct wish between rental and ownership instead. >> yes, i would. >> in time for tomorrow.

>> it would make a huge difference. >> if we're talking about ownership at 140% that's one thing. if we are allowing 140% at rental price, to be considered your obligation to our affordable housing crisis, i just can't support that. and again, i just have to emphasize, $3,000 for a studio unit, i would not pay that much for a studio. how can that be your afford able housing contribution. if you want to change that to home ownership, our inclusionary is pegged at 120. we allow households that make up to 1 50% eligible for those units. as much as possible i'd like to stick with our inclusionary housing ordinance. i think a wide band of folks should be eligible. >> if i may too, supervisor, kim as well, i know that there were pieces, previous pieces of housing legislation that i worked on where we had different bands of income levels qualified

for someone housing levels and we didn't spell it out in the legislation, it was through the mayor's office. housing where the policy lies and so, hence, i understand why it might be be spelled out here but i agree with maybe breaking it down between ownership and rental. but keeping the income bands held with whatever it is that mayor housing policy is in that regard. >> i wasn't done. i really appreciate the clarity. i would agree with that spelling it out. i just wanted to say a few comments. i appreciate all the folks that spoke from the community and from organized labor. one of the things that i think that is an important point that's missed often, is a lot of the men and women that build this type of housing often can't live in that housing. i think that's one of the most insulting things about our housing market today. so anyone that's criticizing the

folks coming out to build, this plan actually makes an attempt to create house to g housing tos that are building, folks in organized laboargued labor for n the housing. that was one of the strongest points i wanted to make when we started the inclusionary housing debate, a lot of folks in organized labor said if we can't live in it we're not going to build it anymore. and i think that's a good montra to have. i think what supervisor cohen had said and others have commented on, you know, we do not vem, it's not that we don't have the -- there's no subsidy for working and middle-class people anymore. there is no subsidy. there never has been. other than the redevelopment agency for a small time. there was a certain amount of that. we always made an attempt in this city to over develop and many would argue that we still have not built enough low income

housing. i know that that frustration is there. we are in a housing crisis. there is no financing mechanism for working and middle-class families. our housing market used to take care of those families. bay view hunters point has always been a neighborhood in district 10 for working and middle-class families. my district, outer mission, lake view, has always been a neighborhood for working and middle-class families. but now, homes are going for -- and i can't believe i'm saying this, but homes are almost going for $2 million in district 11. i know they're approaching that in district 10. there is no more private housing market that is taking care of. one of my biggest criticisms of the housing and land use decisions that we have made in this chamber for the last 30 years plus, is that we have not included, we have attempted to

and i know supervisor kim has been pushing on that and i know supervisor cohen has, this is an attempt to do that. this is an attempt in that direction. we do need to refine things a little bit more. i just want to say, there is no funding mechanism for working in middle-class families. this is an attempt, working with a private developer. that's why we pushed hard in the inclusionary housing debate to include and expand the definition of what is affordable. it might seem strange when we see these numbers. two janitors make about $70,000 a year. most of them are in couples, they have children. they do not qualify for tax credit units. so two janitors are not even able to afford to live in what we're defining -- now they are in this new expanded version of inclusionary housing. that is very, very important. along with carpenters, teachers,

nurses, firefighters. these are the folks that are being left out o i really appreciate this. i am in agreement with supervisor kim, supervisor cohen, we need to refine this a little bit. we need to push forward a little bit more. ultimately, if this housing is built on site it will have a significant, significant impact in the total numbers. i think it's a positive thing to diversify the income in that particular area. i want to make one other point and i said this on the record last week. i said this to supervisor cohen and the project sponsors, having something written that talks about a relationship with the housing authority, as it pertains to applications for and job opportunities is to be codified. the most impacted are the residents living across the street in the public housing there and so allowing them the opportunity to be part of the

and having it personalized is important to me. as someone who worked there for a considerable amount of time. i know supervisor cohen has expressed she cares about that as well. >> thank you, supervisor safai. >> we do have data to show the most rapidly declining population in san francisco are middle income families. i do see that this is an opportunity to be able to create those opportunities for them. in any case, supervisor cohen, do you have any further comments? >> president cohen: i have no other comments. thank you for the spirited discussion. one thing i do want to make is that i would imagine tomorrow, i'd like to come out the committee and we can make some

more amendments to it tomorrow in the full board. >> ok, great. we discussed breaking down rental versus ownership in exhibit h under the maximum average a.m.i. explanation and i'm sure we'll have further discussion there. because there's a pending appeal at the board of supervisors, then, if we can get a motion to send out items 10-12 to the full board without recommendation. >> as a committee report. >> deputy city attorney. >> before the action, is the committee accepting the amendment to attachment h proposed by supervisor cohen and oawd? >> let's get a motion on the amendment. as of now, with the understanding that we'll refine it more tomorrow. can we do that without objection. >> and then on the items as amended, to the full board without recommendation. as a committee report. >> yes.

>> we'll do that without objection. >> all right. thank you, very much. now if we can call items -- a i apologize. one second 13-17 together. >> item 1 ordinance of l by adding the central soma area plan making conforming elements and the urban design element and the land use index and the east soma and west soma area plans and making appropriate findings. item number 14 is an ordinance of zoning map of the planning code to create the south central market special use district and make other amendments and making appropriate findings. item number 15 is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations and planning codes to create the central south of market housing sustainability district. creating expedited board of appeals process and making appropriate findings.

item number 16, is an ordinance a manning the planning codes to get us back to the central south market plan and making appropriate findings and item number 17 is an aor dinnance amending the administrative code special tax financing law for tax fining of facilities and services related to the central soma plan and make other necessary amendments. >> thank you. i'm going to turn this over to supervisor kim. >> i think i have spoken enough on the central soma plan item. and so today i will introduce a series of primarily technical non controversial amendments on 18. we are still working on a number of more sub ta tive amendments for the october 15th land use committee. i just want to recognize our planning staff in particular, lisa and josh, who have almost moved into our office at city

hall. they come to speak to us everyday. it's a heavy lift with a plan with such ambitious goals. i stated a lot of my comments at the full board of supervisors last tuesday during the appeal of the environmental document so i won't repeat those statements but instead, i will hand it over to the planning staff. i believe lisa has a presentation for us today and will make a series of amendments to the plan and continue to october 15th which we will make more substantive plans. thank you, lisa.

for the flower smart, cream reand park block sites. they cor tin enter on the review

and approval and will ensure they have flexibility which will allow them to provide a high level of public benefits. if you recall, this amendment made in july proposes a height exception for the one vasser project and another of the key sites which would allow a segment of the site to be increased from 130 to 200 feet if the project build a residential use incentive or in addition to the hotel

>> for the park block, they recommended allowing the commission to grant a waiver for dedication of land for a public park that could be counted against various impact fees that they owe. including the t.s.f. and central soma fee. this concludes staff presentation and we're available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> supervisor kim. >> i just want to thank lisa chen for the presentation of the recommendations that the planning commission continues to recommend or new recommendations. a couple of things i just want to say, i just appreciate that very quickly, after listening to the public comment from the appeal last tuesday, the planning department and the commission is recommending that we look at groner an green and g

walls greater than 160 feet. also looking to establish a design process that will ensure that these popo sunshine also provide amenities that will support youth and families as well. so just recognizing that that was two of the community asks that came forward on the plan. it's great to see that that is already getting incorporated into the planning departments and planning commission's recommendation. i also really love the concept of us exploring a legalization pathway for live, work, loss. throughout the city but in particular in this district. we have many with live, work, lots built in the '90s and early 2000s that were able to kind of escape paying impact fees or even meeting certain building codes because they were live work versus residential. so allowing them to have a

pathway to become purely residential units, which many of them bakely operate as, they're not true low live work. and providing funds for affordable housing and infrastructure is important. so i just want to thank the commission and the staff for these recommendations. and so at this time, i don't have anymore questions or comments, so i'm happy to open up for public comment on the item. >> i wonder, before we go to public comment, because i just received the list of amendments, i apologize if this might be a little -- it we put on whether or not and speak to us or not and the other. >> i'm happy to do that if. i can start on page two or page

four. i'm not introducing an amendment. just so we can all follow. starting on notable planning department recommendations, which is slide 4. sfgovtv, if we can have the overhead. i only introduced the transparency. i think this reduces the transparency for facades under 50 feet in link if they're pdr. i did not introduce allowing hotel on residential lots. for the 17-foot height. that's just the technical question i had to ask staff and we werwe ran out of time. i have included many key site exceptions and i don't believe all of them but a number of them today. including the special height exception for one vasser and the bulk requirements for stillman

street. >> you do those? >> yes, those were all done. >> ok. >> on the next slide -- >> i'm sorry meaning yes she is proposing those amendments but only some you said? >> i just don't know if we -- there's so many. >> thank you. >>

>> i did see this revised. it looks like it was taken. i was just wondering about the public -- i'm sorry, the planning commission's recommendation which they said -- sorry, they recommended to take $5 million from the regional transit capacity enhancement fund reducing that to $155 million, which should be sufficient for them. i wondered your thoughts about that? >> at this point, i have not accepted that amendment or that recommendation. actually, i guess at this point, some of this is on the planning code and some of this is in the

c.f.d. document. currently, i believe we're at $15 million. the regional transit is at 155 and the p.d.r. assistance fund is 10 with the environmental sustainability at 65. >> i'm confused -- i wonder why we can't, at this point, change it then? >> deputy city attorney john gibner. in july there were amendments to the planning code that the committee considered. on the list that supervisor kim distributed was a change to the implementation program document, regarding the ultimate. the planning commission last week considered all of the recommendation -- all of the amendments that the committee made to the ordinance.

also considered an amended version of the program document, which reduced it from 20 million to 15 million. the planning commission approved that document and the ordinance but recommended modifications. so today, it is up to the committee. you can make this amendment today if you chose, to amend the ordinance to say we anticipate the c.f.d. funds will be spent in accordance with the implementation program document, including that ex number of dollars, $15 million, $20 million, will be spent on -- it's a call you can make and it would be an amendment to the ordinance. >> that is not on my list of amendments today. it's something that could you brought back to land use

committee on october 15th. in my mind, i had separated to the c.f.d. conversation going before the government audit and oversight committee. that can be made in either committee. >> i'm not sure if it sits in the legislation in g.a.o. i can figure touch it can be made in this committee? >> i can actually clarify that point as well. at the g.a.o., what will be heard are the resolutions of intention so that establishes the array and method of charging the c.f.d. on new properties and it doesn't talk about the public benefits package? >> ok. >> and so i have not sub submitd amendments on changing the public benefits program. as we move on to the remaining slides, i have not submitted amendments in regards to adding a key site, allowing land

dedication or t.d.m. grandfathering. all are more controversial amendments where there's a discussion between project sponsors, our office and the community are pending and are awaiting discussion. including the public benefits program. >> ok. >> all right supervisor safai. we can resume public conversation after public comment. at this point, any members of the public who wish to comment on central soma, please, come on up. >> all of you, you demonstrations earlier, pertaining to the previous items bol sters my point and demonstrates how that you have a ball of confusion on your hands and even yourself, you admit, that you would not pay the one, two or three thousands a month for a studio. you couldn't afford it.

but yet, still in all, you set the income brackets for the requirements. you make reference to the income scale and claim that teachers make $57,000 a year and you got staff that works in your office that can't afford to live in the city. that is because you are price fixing. you claim that you claiming tax credits and the tax credits that you claiming, like you do it on that apartment building, you claim a federal low income tax credit, got the government thinking that you will house low income bracket people. when you get past that process, you delivery price fix and provide the housing opportunities at 55% of $40,400 a year. that's not fair.

and it's outrageous. in fact, you further bolster the point that you need rent control. the professors from uc berkley demonstrated all the details as follows. further, uc berkley for housing fair and inclusive society shows that rent control policies are the key to stabilizing the state's housing crisis. the research found that rent control, when a supplied with other housing policy, can prevent housing costs from spiraling out of control and forcing families to leave their communities. yet you don't follow this information. >> good afternoon. my name is joe lopez. i am representing n.p.u. non plus ultra. we are the curators of the old

mint. what i'd like to do today is to let you know our intentions and what we do at the mint. right now, one of our highest priorities is making the mint community activated. we creatively put together different types of events to open up two the youth, to families, to the elderly, to all communities. it is also our intention to connect with neighboring businesses and residents surrounding the mint. right now, as everyone has been able to see what the mint has gone through, we do -- it is a challenge to keep the whole area as a community. community is extremely

important. i've been listening to a lot of the conversations and i have to say i appreciate how everyone is listening to everyone's comments and where the city is going. right now i would like to let you know 100%, our intention is to open up the mint. a lot of times people will always interested on what is inside. what is happening with the mint. that is what we're working on in many, many ways of opening this up. we work with non profits, we work with chs tours, we have history days, we worked with san francisco art institute, mast percenmastersprogram and one ofe ways is we have an